Income Tax : The article explains remedies available after adverse tax orders under scrutiny and reassessment. The key takeaway is that choosin...
Income Tax : The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. ...
Income Tax : A surge in Section 143(2) notices was triggered by the June 2025 limitation deadline. This explains why cases were picked and how ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually ex...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capi...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
ITAT Kolkata held that revision of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) unsustainable as levy of interest u/s. 115P of the Income Tax Act for short payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) u/s. 115-O of the Income Tax Act, which comes under a separate Chapter, was not part of assessment order.
Bombay High Court held that amount received as per arbitration award by the appellant pursuant to a family arrangement is not chargeable to tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head “business income” and there is no justification in estimating the rental value from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under section 263 of the Act.
Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any demand, as demand adjusted against refund, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of expenditure owing to suspension of business unsustainable as there is nothing on record to show that assessee has completely abandoned or closed the business forever by disposing of its assets and going into liquidation.
ITAT Delhi held that donations received cannot be considered to be anonymous donations under section 115BBC as details i.e., name, address, PAN, amount of donations of donors provided and not proved to be wrong.
ITAT Chennai held that only the mistake apparent from record which can be rectified but where two views are possible or there is a debate available, it cannot be rectified u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that disallowance of travel expenditure unjustified as the expenses incurred had a nexus with the business interest of the respondent/assessee and AO has not brought anything on record to prove that the expenditure were of personal nature.
ITAT Chennai held that revision order u/s. 263 unjustified and liable to be quashed as no findings which proves that there is a violation of the proviso to provision of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 11 rightly claimed.
ITAT Mumbai held that once only comparable as chosen by DRP fails, then same loses the comparability for determining the ALP.
